NUCLEAR SAFETY: U.S. DEL REPORT ON THE THIRD ORGANIZATIONAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 22 UNVIE VIENNA 000663 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/NESS AND IO/T DOE FOR EM-1 TRIAY NRC MDOANE AND JSCHWARTZMAN E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ENRG TRGY KNNP AORC SUBJECT: NUCLEAR SAFETY: U.S. DEL REPORT ON THE THIRD ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE JOINT CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND ON THE SAFETY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, OCTOBER 13-14, 2008 REF: (A) STATE 101834 (B) STATE 021717 (C) UNVIE 000336 (D) STATE 083792 (E) STATE 089182 (F) STATE 078514 (G) STATE 115372 (H) STATE 108911 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Confrontation and procedural machinations marred the October 2008 Organizational Meeting on the Joint Convention. The meeting's main purpose was to elect officers for the May 2009 Third Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties. The U.S. candidate for presidency of the Third Review Meeting had plurality support in the first round of voting but fell short of the required 50-percent-plus-one. The past Review president orchestrated the blocking of the U.S. candidate. USDEL opted to accept a vice presidency. End summary. -------------- BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION -------------- ¶2. (U) The Third Organizational Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (Joint Convention) took place October 13-14, 2008 in Vienna. Janet Gorn, Department of State (ISN/NESS),headed the Delegation. USDEL included Alternate Delegate Ben McRae, Assistant General Counsel for Civilian Nuclear Programs, Department of Energy, and Advisors Patrice Bubar and Catherine Haney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Accompanying the Delegation were Dr. Ines Triay, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Environmental Management Program, Department of Energy, and the U.S. candidate for President of the Joint Convention Third Review Meeting; Frank UNVIE VIEN 00000663 002 OF 022 Marcinowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory compliance, Department of Energy; Douglas Tonkay LLW/MLLW Team Leader, DOE Office of Disposal Operations; and Heather Astwood, Nuclear Safety Attache, U.S. Mission to International Organizations, Vienna (UNVIE). ¶3. (SBU) The preparatory meeting was called to elect officers, establish country groups, recommend a budget, and establish a Provisional Agenda for the May 11-20, 2009, Third Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties. For all Parties, the meeting was particularly challenging in seeking to chart a consensus course despite the Organizational Chairman's efforts to impose operationally his views on agenda items, including in particular election of Organizational and Review Meeting Officers. The U.S., Canada, and the U.K. set forth recommendations for an open-ended topical session to focus on suggestions and recommendations for improving the process. U.S. representatives were elected to Review Meeting offices, as Vice President of the Peer Review Meeting and as Coordinator of a Country Review Group. Noteworthy was a special presentation by the President of the Joint Convention Second Meeting of the Parties, Andre-Claude Lacoste, and his innovative views on making public all National Reports, encouraging interviews with journalists and the media, and introducing the media into the process by opening the Joint Convention process to the Press. -------------- Opening of the Meeting (Agenda Item 1) -------------- ¶4. (U) Mr. Tomihiro Taniguchi, IAEA Deputy Director General heading the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, opened the meeting. His opening remarks spoke to the current expansion of nuclear power UNVIE VIEN 00000663 003 OF 022 programs to meet the increasing energy demands in many parts of the world, making spent fuel management and disposal, decommissioning, and radioactive waste disposal key concerns for many policy makers, the public, and the news media. He noted that plans for new and reinvigorated nuclear power development worldwide needed to be complemented by equally ambitious plans for the establishment and enhancement of sustainable spent fuel and radioactive waste management. He commented on the need for a global waste safety regime and the maturing of international safety standards, noted the progress and challenges identified in the past two Joint Convention Review Meetings, welcomed the five new Parties (China, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, South Africa and Tajikistan),and stressed the need to increase Joint Convention membership in particular for those non-nuclear power countries with disused sealed source disposal, including via IAEA promotional efforts and those of Contracting Parties. -------------- Election of the Organizational President and Vice President (Agenda Item 2) -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Mr. Andre-Claude Lacoste/France was nominated for President of the Joint Convention Organizational Meeting. There being no other nominations, Mr. Lacoste was elected by consensus. For the office of Vice President no candidates were proposed. From the dais and without prior consultation with USDEL, Lacoste nominated Ms. Patrice Bubar of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Vice President. A U.S. intervention thanked Mr. Lacoste but declined the nomination. There being no other Vice President nominations this agenda item was postponed until the IAEA Secretariat could confer with delegations. Subsequently, Mr. Luc Baekelandt/Belgium was proposed and elected by consensus. UNVIE VIEN 00000663 004 OF 022 -------------- Adoption of the Agenda (Agenda Item 3) and Consideration of Credentials of Participants (Agenda Item 4) -------------- ¶6. (U) The Organizational Meeting Agenda was adopted by consensus as presented. There were no credential challenges or requests for participation by any new Parties whose ratification instruments had been submitted to the IAEA, but had not yet entered into force. -------------- Establishment of country Groups (Agenda Item 5.1) -------------- ¶7. (U) Since the Second Meeting of the Parties in 2006, five new Contracting Parties submitted their instruments of ratification. As a result there are now forty-six (46) Contracting Parties (45 countries plus EURATOM). To accommodate the number of current national reports to be reviewed and a reasonable timetable, the number of country Review Groups was expanded from five (5) to six (6). The IAEA Secretariat announced all National Reports had not been submitted and requested those countries with delinquent reports to promptly forward their reports both electronically and in hard copy. -------------- Election of the President and two vice-Presidents of the Review Meeting (Agenda Item 5.2) -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Election of officers for the Joint Convention Third Review Meeting became complicated first with a two-week extension of the UNVIE VIEN 00000663 005 OF 022 deadline for nomination of officers at the request of Andre-Claude Lacoste, President of the Second Meeting of the Parties. Lacoste made clear to all his view that the President of the Joint Convention should be a regulator, and he lobbied governments to that end. Prior to the extension there was one candidate (U.S.) for President and one candidate for each of the two Vice-Chairman positions. As a result of the extension and recruitment of others, for the first time in corporate memory an election of officers was conducted. The election took up the entire morning session. Three candidates were formally nominated for the Office of President: Dr. Ines Triay, US/Department of Energy Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environmental Management; Dr. Kunihisa Soda, Commissioner, Japan Nuclear Safety Commission; and Mr. Abel Gonzalez, Argentine Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (who did not attend the Organizational Meeting). Three candidates were nominated for the two Vice President positions (Japan, Hungary, Ukraine). ¶9. (U) Prior to the start of the Organizational Meeting, Dr. Triay and her DOE team along with the U.S. Head of Delegation had met with Joint Convention delegates to discuss Dr. Triay's vision statement "21st Century Challenges for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management." Dr. Triay pointed out that twelve years after the Convention was opened for signature the global nuclear village had dramatically changed. There was a reemergence of interest in expanding the benefits of nuclear power and more then forty (40) developing and transitional nations were considering adding nuclear power to their energy portfolios, while advanced nuclear nations were expanding their nuclear fleets, she said. To meet the challenges of this renaissance, Parties needed to reinvigorate a Joint Convention leadership that would seek to better achieve its goals and objectives as the use of nuclear power increases over the coming years. UNVIE VIEN 00000663 006 OF 022 ¶10. (SBU) Before the election of officers for the Organizational Meeting, the IAEA Secretariat (Office of the Legal Advisor) called a meeting of the three Presidential candidates and the meeting president, Mr. Lacoste. The Secretariat noted that it was not in the best interest of the Joint Convention process to hold an election and suggested candidates reconsider their candidacies. All candidates declined to withdraw their names. Outgoing President Lacoste offered to support the United States as the next President of the Meeting of the Parties of the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) if Dr. Triay would withdraw her current candidacy. The U.S. responded neither Dr. Triay nor the U.S. delegation had the authority to accept such an offer, moreover the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was the lead agency for the CNS, not the U.S. Department of Energy. Dr. Triay also met separately in private with each of the candidates prior to the Organizational Meeting. ¶11. (U) With the announcement of the need for a secret ballot, the IAEA Secretariat outlined the process for the Parties. The U.K. and the Canadian delegations were designated ballot counters. The U.S. delegation requested that Dr. Triay be recognized to make a statement regarding her views on the Joint Convention. President Lacoste declined to accept a statement from the candidate; however he stated he would entertain statements by the delegations. The U.S. delegation presented Dr. Triay's Vision Statement. Prior to commencing with the distribution of ballots, the Argentine delegation withdrew Mr. Gonzales's name as a candidate, because the election was by vote and not by consensus. ¶12. (U) Forty ballots were passed out. The vote result favored Dr. Triay, who received 19 votes; Dr. Soda had 18 votes, there were two abstentions; although not a candidate, Mr. Gonzalez received 1 vote. The IAEA Secretariat declared a second secret ballot would be UNVIE VIEN 00000663 007 OF 022 distributed, because the first ballot was an "unrestricted ballot" (requiring an absolute majority),which had not been made clear prior to the vote. Dr. Triay requested the U.S. delegation seek a recess for the candidates, which was granted, and proposed a meeting between the U.S. and the Japanese. ¶13. (U) During the lunch break the Secretariat convened a short meeting regarding an election irregularity with the abstention ballots cast. One of the two ballots cast was by the EURATOM delegate; EURATOM has no voting rights and the vote was declared invalid. ¶14. (SBU) During the lunch break a number of discussions took place between the IAEA Secretariat, the U.S. and Japan, in which the Secretariat Office of the Legal Advisor proposed, with USDEL concurrence, that Dr. Soda withdraw given the U.S. candidate had received the most votes. President Lacoste also met with the Japanese candidate and urged him not to withdraw. ¶15. (SBU) During the lunch period President Lacoste also called a European Union (EU) meeting for the purpose of drafting an EU demarche to the U.S. In an oral demarche made to the U.S. Mission representative by a French Mission official, the EU stated it was supporting Dr. Soda and would support the U.S. for a Vice President position. While the U.S. was considering the EU demarche, President Lacoste reconvened the Organizational Meeting and attempted to move forward with a vote for the President, necessitating a U.S. intervention for a short recess to complete consideration of the EU demarche. ¶16. (SBU) After USDEL internal deliberations, Dr. Triay decided in the best interest of the Joint Convention process she would withdraw her candidacy for President rather than prolong the election with UNVIE VIEN 00000663 008 OF 022 further negotiations. Dr. Triay declined the offer of submitting her name for a Vice President position and requested Mr. Frank Marcinowski be nominated as the U.S. candidate. ¶17. (U) The Organizational Meeting was reconvened once again to take up the agenda item to elect a President for the Review Meeting. Dr. Soda was elected by consensus. A secret ballot was distributed to Parties for the election of the two Vice Presidents. The Japanese candidate dropped out of the VP election, because one country cannot have two executive officers. The French delegation nominated Mr. Marcinowski for Vice President. The other candidates remained on the ballot. The U.S. received 33 votes, Dr. Laszio Koblinger the Hungarian candidate received 25 votes, and the Ukraine candidate Ms. Olena Mykolaichuk received 14 votes. -------------- Election of Country Group Officers: Coordinators (Agenda Item 5.3), Rapporteurs and Chairpersons (Agenda Item 5.4),Election of Vice Chairpersons (Agenda Item 5.5) -------------- ¶18. (U) With the two-week extension of the deadline for nomination of candidates for the Country Review Group Officers (Chairman, Vice Chairman, Coordinator, and Rapporteur),the number of formally nominated candidates increased with multiple nominations for each office in each Group. The election of officers followed Joint Convention Guidelines, whereby each Country Review Group elected its officers. With no exception, all of the Groups stipulated all candidates were well qualified and opted not to vote by secret ballot. The two criteria used to measure the most suitable candidate were: 1) Equity among nations, in particular providing a leadership opportunity to smaller nations, and 2) Whether or not the candidate could read, write, and speak fluent English. Selection of UNVIE VIEN 00000663 009 OF 022 officers was by consensus. The U.S. assigned group selected Ms. Mary Biesi, Program Analyst, Office of Disposal Operations, DOE Office of Environmental Management, for the office of Coordinator. -------------- Adoption of a Budget for the Review Meeting (Agenda Item 5.6) -------------- ¶19. (U) The budget was adopted by consensus as presented, at 106,500 Euros. This represents an increase of 378 Euros from the 2006 budget. -------------- Open-ended Topic Session (Agenda Item 5.7) -------------- ¶20. (U) Interventions were made by the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. delegations for topical proposals for two Open-Ended Sessions; one on the Voluntary Data Presentation Tool (U.S.) and one on a collection of proposals to improve the Joint Convention Process (U.S., Canada, U.K.). ¶21. (U) The U.S. proposal for the Voluntary Data Presentation Tool was adopted by consensus without comment. The Canadian and U.K. delegations supported the U.S. five-point proposal to improve the Joint Convention process and added four additional topics. Additional interventions were made by other delegates supporting the U.S. proposal and those of Canada and the United Kingdom. Several Parties commented on the importance of increasing membership in the Joint Convention, in particular with the increased interest by approximately 40 non-nuclear power countries in adding nuclear power to their energy mix. The U.S. five-point proposal, the Canadian UNVIE VIEN 00000663 010 OF 022 additional point proposal, and the U.K. three-point proposal for an open-ended topical meeting were adopted by consensus as follows: BEGIN ADOPTED TEXTS (1) The Voluntary Data Presentation Tool for Joint Convention national reports Based on Net-Enabled Waste Management Data Base. The first topical proposal was developed by the Working Group of the country Coordinators for the Net-enabled Waste management Database (NEWMDB). Contributors to the proposal included the Untied States, the Netherlands, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Germany. Contracting Parties and other IAEA Member States already provide detailed information regarding radioactive waste and spent fuel facilities, inventories, and ongoing decommissioning activities, into such IAEA databases as the Net Enabled Waste Management Database (NEWMDB),Nuclear Fuel cycles Information System (NFCIS) the Research Reactor Database (RRDB),and the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS). The information provided to these databases is a useful resource for reporting according to Article 32, Section 2, of the Joint Convention. Contracting Parties could use their information already provided in these databases (if current) for their National Reports, thus reducing the burden for the preparation of the reports and also promoting consistency between the data provided in National reports and these databases. The Topical Session proposal is to explore the voluntary use of the new data presentation tool to commence with the Fourth Review Meeting. The data tool would not replace preparation of the whole National Report, but would facilitate the development and review of tables and annexes that are now provided in various formats. The proposal was adopted by consensus with little comment. NOTE: The UNVIE VIEN 00000663 011 OF 022 U.S. supported the use of the data tool and volunteered to use the U.S. National Report data as a model to demonstrate the value and benefits. (2) Five Recommendations to Improve the Joint Convention Process. The second topical Open-ended Session was proposed by the United States to discuss the five (5) topics as reflected in Dr. Ines Triay's nomination vision statement, "21st Century Challenges for the Joint Convention" BEGIN U.S. TOPICAL SESSION POINTS: -- Continuity Between Meetings. We need to establish continuity and an ongoing dialogue between Review Meetings to support sustained momentum toward meeting the objectives of the Joint convention. Through efficient communication, Parties can communicate important and real-time lessons learned and discuss and even resolve emerging issues related to the Joint Convention. Initiatives to consider include: (1) Reinstating the Joint convention newsletter; (2) scheduling regular and more frequent meetings of the General committee (for example, meetings every six months); and (3) exploring innovative use of electronic communication methods, such as web-based meetings, web-exchanges and blogs, and development of CDs. -- Robust Peer Review Process. We need to ensure the peer review process remains a strong and transparent process that encourages frank and open discussion of issues that arise in national programs so that all Parties can exchange experiences and learn from one another and thereby enhance their national programs. In addition, as the number of Parties increases, we need to explore mechanisms to increase the efficiency of the peer review process without UNVIE VIEN 00000663 012 OF 022 diminishing its effectiveness. -- Increased Membership in Joint Convention. We need to reinvigorate efforts to increase the number of Parties to the Joint convention. As countries consider starting or expanding nuclear power programs, it is essential that they participate in the Joint convention and gain a better understanding of the importance of the back-end of the fuel cycle - waste management and disposal. Efforts should be undertaken to make the Joint Convention more relevant to these countries, as well as countries engaged in uranium mining and industrial uses of radioactive materials, including sealed sources. -- Greater Public Acceptance. We need to consider mechanisms to foster greater public acceptance of spent fuel and radioactive management activities. We must explore how to reach out to members of the public, local governments, community and environmental groups and others, to communicate why spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities are safe and secure, and to explain in simple and understandable terms what ate the actual risks associated with these activities and what is the level of protection afforded by safety standards, radiological protection measures and concepts such as "defense in depth." -- Inclusive Joint Convention Leadership. We need to ensure the leadership of the Joint convention includes a broad cross section of these persons involved in spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities, including government officials responsible for making spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy, implementing regulatory requirements, and making management decisions that affect the level of safety and security in spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities. We should consider formalizing the informal guidelines outlined by the President of the Organizational Meeting for the Second Meeting of the Parties to UNVIE VIEN 00000663 013 OF 022 facilitate selection of the President, Vice-Presidents, and other officials for the Review Meetings. These informal guidelines include factors such as: gender, rotation of leadership positions among countries, mixture of operators and regulators, representation from large and small countries, and geographic variability. (See paragraph 8 of the Report of the President of the Organizational Meeting for the Second Review Meeting of the Parties.) END U.S. TOPICAL POINTS AND ADOPTED TEXTS (3) Permanent Subcommittee on Continuity of Review Officer Knowledge Transfer. The third topical proposal was proposed by Canadian delegation to be added to the U.S. proposed Open-ended session, which was the establishment of a permanent Sub-Committee on Continuity of Review Officer Knowledge Transfer. (4) Special Session for Policy-makers and Perspective New Parties and Guidelines for Election of Officers. An intervention by the U.K. delegate supported the U.S. five-point proposal and the Canadian proposal, noting the U.K. would submit several other points to be added, including consideration for convening a Special Session in conjunction with the Review Meeting for Policy-makers and one for perspective new Parties, as well as the need to establish guidelines for election of leadership candidates that would include among other factors oral statements by the candidates before a vote and no restrictions on whether a candidate should be a regulator, operator, or policy-maker. -------------- Invitation of Observers to the Review Meeting UNVIE VIEN 00000663 014 OF 022 (Agenda Item 6) -------------- ¶22. (U) By consensus agreement an invitation will be extended to the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the European Bank for Reconstruction (EBRD) to participate in the Review Meeting as an observer. -------------- Languages for Plenary Sessions (Agenda Item 7),Interpretation during Country Review Group Sessions (Agenda Item 8),and Document Languages (Agenda Item 9) -------------- ¶23. (U) Languages for the Plenary Sessions will be English, Russian, Spanish, Chinese and French. The Russian delegation requested an interpreter on the day of their National Report presentation. -------------- Perspectives from the President of the Second Review Meeting, Andre-Claude Lacoste (Agenda Item 10) -------------- ¶24. (U) Andre-Claude Lacoste provided an overview of his views regarding the Joint Convention, much of which had already been expressed throughout the Organizational meeting, including continuity of leadership, reducing the number of days for the Review Meeting, Country Review Group timetable, openness and transparency, and increasing the number of Parties. Of particular note were his innovative views on making public all National Reports, encouraging interviews with journalists and the media and introducing the media into the peer review process. There were several interventions, UNVIE VIEN 00000663 015 OF 022 such as that of Spain, noting President Lacoste's views were contradictory to Convention objectives; Parties required sufficient time for a peer review of National Reports. Other delegations including the U.S. rejected opening the peer review process to the press, which would result in a deterioration of the intent and objectives of the Joint Convention. The U.S. delegation also noted the Rules of Procedure already provided for continuity of leadership and strongly recommended these provisions be reenergized. -------------- Provisional Agenda and Time Table (Agenda Item 11) -------------- ¶25. (U) President Lacoste proposed the agenda be considerably condensed, including the Opening and Closing Plenary as well as the amount of time allotted for National Report presentations in Country Review Groups. His very firm view centered on refocusing the National Report Country Review Group process to what was new since the last meeting of the Parties and answers to the questions posed by Party reviews. Intervention responses by Parties to his proposal were not favorable, in particular on shortening the Country Review Group schedules and a refocusing of purpose. Some delegations suggested innovative approaches such as that proposed by the Swedish, Hungarian, and U.S. delegations to shorten the schedule by utilizing the weekend and evenings, including holding the Opening Plenary on Sunday. ¶26. (U) The Belgian, Italian, Spanish and U.S. interventions noted the time proposed to be allotted for Country Review Groups was too short and scheduling should be in relation to the size of the program, not to fit an artificial schedule. Belgian and Canadian interventions also pointed out that, with the number of countries anticipated to become new Joint Convention Parties, an abbreviated UNVIE VIEN 00000663 016 OF 022 National Report presentation schedule would short-change the benefits for them. Parties needed to mindful of the importance of the process in relation to bringing new countries into the process and the interest of smaller programs of current Parties. The Canadian and U.S. delegations' very strong interventions stressed that Parties do not want to sacrifice a frank and open discussion to satisfy a reduced time schedule. The U.S. also pointed out National Reports already included as a prefix what was new since the last Review Meeting. ¶27. (U) Delegate consensus supported the Provisional Agenda including the Opening Plenary be limited to one-half day on Monday. It was pointed out by one delegate that the proposed Agenda was "Provisional" and the Parties could further discuss it in the Opening Plenary. -------------- Proposed National Report Schedule Matrix (Agenda Item 11) -------------- ¶28. (U) The IAEA Secretariat provided the Parties a proposed day-by-day schedule for National Report presentations. A number of interventions were made similar to those for the Provisional Agenda, objecting to the time allotted to review National Reports. Of particular interest were Interventions by Canada and Russia. Among a number of points by the Canadian delegation was their objection to a split session for any country's National Report presentation, which in their view was not a good idea and made the process unwieldy. Canada requested all split session be rescheduled. The Russian intervention requested the time for its National Report review be reduced, because they did not anticipate a longer period would be needed. Other delegations did not appear to agree. UNVIE VIEN 00000663 017 OF 022 ¶29. (U) The U.S. intervention firmly restated that there needs to be a full and open discussion of National Reports and that the United States did not support sacrificing such a discussion by compressing the schedule in the interest of time as laid out in the matrix. The U.S. joined other Party interventions objecting to the proposed matrix, which would schedule those countries with large programs at the same time on the same day. There was general support that the National Reports of the U.S., UK, Japan, Canada, Korea and Russia (who all have programs of great interest to smaller countries as well as to all Parties),not be scheduled simultaneously. In addition it was noted China will be presenting its report for the first time and many delegates will want to hear its presentation. The U.S. as well as other delegations commented that the main objective of the Country Review Groups is to provide a robust peer review, not to fit the process into an artificial schedule. The U.S. attached great importance to the oral presentations and did not want to see the value of the peer process diminished. ¶30. (U) The IAEA Secretariat was initially less than accommodating to the suggested rearrangement of the schedule by the Parties. NOTE: The Head of the U.S. Delegation was approached by several delegations after the Organizational Meeting urging the U.S. to press for a revised matrix more in line with interventions. The Italian and Slovak delegations also conferred with the Head of the U.S. Delegation on the margins of OECD/EA Steering Committee meeting in Paris, to again press the IAEA Secretariat to schedule the National Report presentations of the larger countries on different days. Both noted that while the larger countries could afford to send enough delegation members to Vienna to cover all six Country Review groups for the full two weeks, many smaller countries did not have the funds or a large enough staff to do likewise. Their appeal to the U.S. to support staggering the scheduling reflected that UNVIE VIEN 00000663 018 OF 022 these countries received peer review comments in their assigned Country Review Groups, but also a better understanding of larger programs that simply reading a National Report does not convey, and these lessons could apply to their national programs. Moreover, smaller countries do not have the staff or the resources to review 46 National Reports. In addition, perspective new Parties need to feel comfortable with the process and not overwhelmed. End Note. After the meeting, the U.S. Head of Delegation followed up with the Secretariat on the need to rearrange the National Report matrix to better reflect Contracting Party consensus. After several exchanges on how best to accomplish this, the IAEA Secretariat responded that it had given more thought to the matter and had come up with a new matrix and welcomed U.S. comments. After reviewing the new matrix, the U.S. responded we found it to be more in keeping with the recommendations of Parties and an improvement to the peer review process. -------------- Other Relevant Matters (Agenda Item 12) -------------- ¶31. (U) Other relevant matters considered by the Contracting Parties were: ¶A. Dates for Fourth Review meeting Consensus supported the Joint Convention Organizational Meeting be convened October 18-19, 2011 and the Review Meeting be convened May 14-15, 2012. ¶B. President Lacoste Request to Provide a Special Presentation on the IAEA Safety Standards, including a history of evolution and current status UNVIE VIEN 00000663 019 OF 022 President Lacoste requested the Contracting Parties support a special presentation by him at the Opening Plenary on IAEA Safety Standards, including a history of evolution and current status, in his capacity as Chairman of the IAEA Working Group on IAEA Safety Standards. After a very long pause, an intervention by the Spanish delegation in explicit terms summed up the general feeling of delegations, which was that the Opening Plenary had been condensed in the interest of time at the suggestion of Lacoste and they saw no need to extend it for such a presentation. Moreover, for several years, in just about every IAEA fora, there has already been an ample review. Mr. Lacoste replied that it was clear the Parties did not want to hear a briefing and withdrew his proposal. ¶C. Next General Committee Meeting President Lacoste provided his views on the need for continuity between Review Meetings and recommended the General Committee set a planning meeting date well before the Third Meeting of the Parties. He commented there should be follow-up regarding Joint Convention outcomes and initiatives. Several delegations, including the U.S., noted that since the Second Meeting of the Parties there had been no General Committee meetings scheduled and recommended the IAEA Secretariat provide assistance in scheduling regular and more frequent meetings of the General Committee (for example, meetings every six months) as already explicitly incorporated in the Rules of Procedure; exploring innovative use of electronic communication methods, such as web-based meetings, web-exchanges and blogs, and development of CDs; and reinstating the Joint convention newsletter. (NOTE: Subsequently a General Committee meeting of Joint Convention Officers - President, Vice Presidents, Country Review Group Chairmen - and Coordinators was scheduled for March 10-11, 2009 in Vienna). UNVIE VIEN 00000663 020 OF 022 ¶D. Suggestions for National Report Oral Presentations The U.S. intervention responded the presentation format of the Second Meeting of the Parties worked well, with an oral presentation followed by a discussion. A Canadian intervention spoke to the need to include responses to questions. The Belgium delegation intervention raised concern with new questions that were not previously submitted prior to the Review Meeting. -------------- Discussions on the Margins of the Meeting -------------- ¶32. (SBU) Subsequent to the closing of the Organizational Meeting, several delegations conferred with the Head of the U.S. Delegation regarding among a number of points their concern with how the meeting was conducted and the need for reform and refocus on the objectives and purpose of the Joint Convention. The U.K. expressed its view that the Organizational Meeting Chairman was more involved with leveraging his personal views then in conducting a fair and level playing field for agenda items, which "must never ever happen again." Canada expressed similar sentiments and that it will work to reverse this situation through the Open-ended Topical Session process. ¶33. (SBU) The Italian, Slovakian, Finnish and the UK delegations' discussions with U.S. Head of Del were concerned with the European Union (EU) demarche to the U.S. regarding voting for the President of the Review Meeting. Concern focused on their understanding it was a verbal demarche and not written as agreed by EU members, which could leave room for a less than clear intent. Of fundamental concern to these four delegations was whether or not the demarche had stipulated the EU would vote as a block (Note: As it had. End UNVIE VIEN 00000663 021 OF 022 Note.) These dels informed USDEL the EU coordination meeting called by Lacoste had firmly declined to vote as a block. They further stressed that the EU meeting had been chaired by Organizational President Lacoste and not the Head of the French delegation. ¶34. (SBU) Organizational Meeting President Lacoste stopped to talk with the Head of the U.S. delegation after the meeting. He recalled DOE Secretary Bodman's sidebar meeting with him September 29 on the margins of the IAEA General Conference, in which the Secretary expressed support for Dr. Triay's candidacy for President. Lacoste asserted that was the first time any Ministerial level official had sought him out to criticize his actions (meaning, his actions in opposition to Dr. Triay's candidacy). Lacoste reiterated to USDEL Head his view that it was best for the President of the Review Meeting to be a regulator, and he was pleased with the outcome of the Organizational Meeting election. ¶35. (SBU) Cyril-Pierre Pinel, Head of the French Delegation noting privately he looked forward to working with the U.S. delegation at the Review Meeting in May. (Comment: During the entire Organizational Meeting deliberations, the French delegation took a passive posture with no interventions or comments on deliberations. End Comment.) ¶36. (U) And lastly, Dr. Soda, the new President of the Third Review Meeting, expressed his support for the points in Dr. Triay's Vision Statement and his interest in working closely with the U.S. delegation. -------------- Going Forward Constructively -------------- UNVIE VIEN 00000663 022 OF 022 ¶37. (SBU) Comment: Weeks after the event, the Argentine candidate for the Third Review meeting presidency, Abel Gonzales, related to Msnoff his admiration for U.S. candidate Triay's qualifications and acknowledged that he had personally favored her over the Japanese candidate, Dr. Soda. NRC HQ notes that Lacoste has substantial political influence, as demonstrated by his ability to coalesce the European Union countries. His influence has been useful to push ahead many joint U.S.-French initiatives that have significantly enhanced nuclear safety world-wide. In this regard, although the U.S. put up Dr. Triay, a highly qualified candidate, Lacoste's efforts to put forward Dr. Soda has promoted a solid candidate on whom the U.S. will be able to depend for a successful meeting of the parties. Dr. Soda has extensive international experience and is recognized world-wide for his leadership and technical expertise. U.S. Mission will provide full support to Dr. Triay, whom we understand will deliver USG remarks, and to the State/DoE/NRC delegation to the Third Review Meeting in May 2009. End Comment. ¶38. (U) This UNVIE-coordinated report was prepared substantially by USDEL head and cleared by DoE and NRC. SCHULTE